When the great philosopher G.K. Chesterton said, Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like, he wasnt advocating infanticide but was just making a point. Unfortunately, though, were getting closer to a time when people would take his words literally. An example of this is a judges decision in Canada that a woman who strangled her newborn baby shouldnt be incarcerated because Canadians failure to criminalize abortion indicates that they sympathize with the mother.

...So Justice Veits decision seems to make no sense whatsoever; that is, unless you look beyond the facts of the case and into the philosophy of the times.

First, Justice Veit exhibits something common to leftist judges: reference to a mythical majority consensus to justify the imposition of her own values. In other words, she claims that Canadians generally understand, accept and sympathize with such mothers, but did she conduct a poll? In point of fact, Effert had been convicted of second-degree murder by two juries, which, while not a scientific sample, are certainly a better barometer of public attitude than a judges fancy. Justice Veits claim smacks of when judges rule contrary to the peoples will in rubber-stamping faux marriage and then claim theyre interpreting a constitution to suit the times.

Veits decision also reflects the modernistic mistake of elevating emotion over reason. While she should be governed by transcendent principles such as justice, she instead talks about feelings: how people sympathize and grieve for the mother. But should emotion-based consensus opinion carry the day? Would we visit medieval torture upon a criminal if that was what the public wanted? This would be entirely democratic, but the very reason modern governments craft constitutions is to ensure that we wont be subject to the caprice of the masses....

Actually, this is a good thing. It will force people to open their eyes and SEE what abortion really is. What’s the difference in killing a child before it’s born or 5 minutes later,.after it’s born? Answer: none.

I think this is a good ruling, as well.
Abortion supporters, for too long, have been able to hide behind the mythical difference between abortion and infanticide.

This draws a line in the sand. You have to admit that abortion is killing a baby and defend infanticide, or you have to choose to oppose abortion as you would infanticide as morally repugnant.

I heard testimony from a man making the case for the equivalence of abortion and infanticide, and he said some young women approached him afterwards and told him he had convinced them - they were now pro-infanticide.

8
posted on 10/08/2012 12:40:47 PM PDT
by MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help. My baby is not even one year-old and Im pregnant again. I dont want kids so close together".

So the doctor said, "Ok and what do you want me to do?"

She said, "I want you to end my pregnancy, and Im counting on your help with this."

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady, "I think I have a better solution for your problem. Its less dangerous for you too."

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued, "You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, lets kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If were going to kill one of them, it doesnt matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms."

The lady was horrified and said, "No doctor how terrible Its a crime to kill a child!"

"I agree", the doctor replied. "But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution."

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child thats already been born and one thats still in the womb. The crime is the same.

I disagree. A lot of childhood defects aren’t apparent until the child is one or two or perhaps even three years old. The judge should have recognized that the parent can throttle the child through the toddler stage of development.

10
posted on 10/08/2012 12:47:55 PM PDT
by Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")

Liberals believe that our planet can only support 30 million people. They are getting old and impatient....abortion is going to have to happen to older and older people in order to reach that goal of 30 million people.

11
posted on 10/08/2012 12:50:34 PM PDT
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

Liberals do want to live forever, but they want to live forever on a planet of only 30 million people. What good is it to be a rich liberal and live forever if your limousine is always stuck in traffic and somebody’s snotty-nosed brat is on your beach?

12
posted on 10/08/2012 12:54:33 PM PDT
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

Infantacide was always accepted in Canada when the Inuit practiced it... Didn’t store enough salmon for the whole family to make it through the winter? ,, throw the baby out on the ice for the dogs to eat...

Academic tripe and I ain’t talking cow stomach, I’m talking academic nonsense and rubbish. It seems that all the education some folks have make them full of educated nonsense and rubbish aka academic tripe. I am so tired of educated fools and their academic foolishness aka folly. It seems people over think things to the point of destruction for all, which appears to be the new definition of equality and fairness as per academic hypothetical tripe.

If you’re talking about the article, this isn’t the kind of stuff they teach in school anymore. It’s the kind of stuff college professors laugh at because it happens to be true. I wish I’d been taught material like this in college philosophy class.

ncpatriot said:(p>if you can legally kill a baby outside the womb, then you can legally kill an adult.

Absotutely. If you can kill a child in the womb, you can kill a newborn infant. If you can kill a newborn infant, then what's the difference if you kill a toddler, a 10 year old, or any adult. Next step - mass slaughter of the useless eaters. And the whole article is well worth reading, here's another snippet:

But we should expect nothing but the subordination of transcendent principles to emotion when people dont believe in transcendent principles. And many today dont because relativism has swept the West.

If people believe in Absolute Truth  as Christendom did until relatively recently, when it just became a dom  they will refer to it when making moral decisions. But when they cannot say, Here are these principles that exist apart from man, and transcend him, and thus we must govern our lives with them, what is left to refer to? What will be the yardstick if there is nothing above man?

Man himself.

To be precise, mans emotion.

I'd say man's lust, greed, anger and envy; to be a bit more precise.

18
posted on 10/08/2012 1:42:00 PM PDT
by little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)

I'm with you. The judge was just being consistent with the law and the prevailing societal attitude that created it. Now let all those who support abortion face the reality of their POV. They have deemed it OK to kill human beings that might cause them emotional discomfort, economic struggle or lifestyle inconvenience.

Well, others of us have our own lists of humans that get on our nerves. It's time for our rights to be recognized too! /s

I feel sad that poor child did not receive justice. This piece really hit the nail on the head.

I am quoting this because it's so important:

But we should expect nothing but the subordination of transcendent principles to emotion when people dont believe in transcendent principles. And many today dont because relativism has swept the West.

If people believe in Absolute Truth  as Christendom did until relatively recently, when it just became a dom  they will refer to it when making moral decisions. But when they cannot say, Here are these principles that exist apart from man, and transcend him, and thus we must govern our lives with them, what is left to refer to? What will be the yardstick if there is nothing above man?

Man himself.

To be precise, mans emotion.

Some will now object and say that reason should be preeminent, but this reflects a misunderstanding of reason. Reason is not an answer  it is a method by which we find answers. This presupposes that there are answers to be found. But if there is no Truth, there can be no answers to moral questions, and then there is no reason for reason. And then we are left with nothing but If it feels good, do it. Is it any wonder this has become a mantra of the modern age?

When this is your mindset, of paramount importance will be your feelings  and those of others  that is, if you feel they should be considered. This is why politically incorrect feelings are given short shrift today; it is why moderns selectively use offensiveness as a guide for hate-speech codes and laws, ignoring umbrage taken by non-victim groups. And it is why Justice Veit  Justice, what a noble title for someone wholly unacquainted with the principle  felt that feeling sorry for a murderer and reference to others alleged feelings legitimized slap-on-the-wrist injustice.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.